For years, elected state officials responded

Transcription

1 Reducing recidivism States Deliver Results June 2014 For years, elected state officials responded to the public s frustration with high crime rates by making incarceration the centerpiece of their crime policy. Suggesting that nothing works to rehabilitate individuals incarcerated in prisons and jails, policymakers across the political spectrum saw high rates of reoffense as inevitable, and keeping people who committed crimes behind bars was seen as the best way to ensure public safety. 1 Over the last 15 years, a series of developments has contributed to a seismic shift in that mindset. Among these developments was a body of research that began to emerge demonstrating that certain programs and approaches to supervision can change some people s criminal behaviors and help them succeed upon release from incarceration. Encouraged by this research and the success that programs were experiencing in their communities, in 2008, Congress passed the Second Chance Act, which established grant programs to stimulate further innovation at the state and local level. Today, improved reentry and recidivism reduction are cornerstones of state and local crime policies across the country. Governors routinely highlight the importance of reducing recidivism in their state of the state addresses, 2 and mayors, sheriffs, and other local leaders across the country have established task forces focusing on reentry in their cities and counties. 3 Compelling evidence is now emerging that shows that recidivism rates for an entire state can indeed change. In 2012, the National Reentry Resource Three-Year Returns to Prison Release Cohort Recidivism Rate Release Cohort Recidivism Rate Percentage- Point Change Percent Change Colorado % % -3.0% -5.8% Connecticut % % -3.9% -8.9% Georgia % % -2.9% -10.0% North Carolina i % % -6.9% -19.3% Pennsylvania % % -3.1% -7.1% Rhode Island ii % % -5.1% -9.4% South Carolina % % -6.0% -17.9% Wisconsin % % -5.1% -9.1% i In North Carolina, the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission computes recidivism rates on a biannual basis for the state. The most recent rates were reported for 2009 and 2011 release cohorts, computed for one-year and two-year intervals. Prior to adopting this newer protocol of two-year intervals, the Sentencing Commission computed three-year recidivism rates for a FY2006 release cohort. It was decided to use the FY2006 three-year rate for this report, so that a similar follow-up period was available for all states. Moreover, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety computed the three-year rates for a 2010 release cohort on request for this report. ii Rhode Island computes its rates approximately every five years; the most recent recidivism reports computed rates for 2004 release cohorts and 2009 release cohorts. Thus, there was not an available data point for 2007 against which to compare the 2010 rates. It was decided to compare the 2004 recidivism rates with rates for 2010, which were computed on request for this report, to provide a longer timeframe of analysis.

2 Recidivism Reductions Percentage-Point Change in Three- Year Recidivism Rates Percentage Change in Three- Year Recidivism Rates Number of Inmates Released in 2010 Number Fewer Returned to Prison for the 2010 Release Group Colorado -3.0% -5.8% 11, Connecticut -3.9% -8.9% 15, Georgia -2.9% -10.0% 21, North Carolina -6.9% -19.3% 25,467 1,757 Pennsylvania -3.1% -7.1% 18, Rhode Island -5.1% -9.4% 2, South Carolina -6.0% -17.9% 12, Wisconsin -5.1% -9.1% 15, Center (NRRC) highlighted seven states that had achieved reductions in three-year recidivism rates for 2005 to In this report, the NRRC highlights eight additional states that have lowered their recidivism rates: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. This report focuses on statewide recidivism data for adults released in 2007 and 2010 with a threeyear follow-up period, offering a current snapshot of criminal justice outcomes in these states. The data are as reported by the states to the Council of State Governments Justice Center following various methodologies used by the states as noted below. The data highlighted from these states do not represent a statistical sampling and cannot be used to propose findings related to national recidivism rates. The information presented here, however, has national value for three reasons. First, the data in this report (which follows release cohorts through 2013) are more recent than those in any other report examining recidivism in multiple states. For example, the most recent federal reports on recidivism analyzed outcomes for adults released in 2005 and followed them through Second, the report highlights an interesting cross-section of states representing different regions of the United States, sizes of prison populations, and correctional systems (two of the states have a unified system, combining what are traditionally separate state prison and county jail systems into one system operated at the state level). Third, the data presented here and in the NRRC s 2012 report demonstrate that it is possible for states to achieve significant statewide reductions in their recidivism rates. While these reports focus on recidivism reductions in the past six years, a comparison of recidivism rates for at least some of these states over a longer period of time would demonstrate even larger reductions. The declines in recidivism rates highlighted in this report have occurred while these states have each experienced declines in incarceration rates and crime rates. (See appendix for incarceration and crime data.) 2 i Reducing recidivism

3 Comparing Recidivism Rates Data provided in this report compare the change in an individual state s recidivism rate from one period to another. This brief does not compare one state s recidivism rate to another state s recidivism rate for several reasons. First, each state has its own definition of recidivism and its own methodology for calculating recidivism. 6 For example, some state measurements of recidivism account only for reincarceration, while others include reconvictions that do not result in a prison or jail sentence. Furthermore, states differ in their definitions of reincarceration. For example, Pennsylvania and South Carolina both define recidivism as a return to the custody of the state Department of Corrections. In Pennsylvania, however, state custody may include prison, county jail, or a Parole Violator Center, whereas state custody in South Carolina is defined as a prison sentence of more than 90 days. (See citations throughout this report for each state s definition of and methodology for calculating recidivism.) Another factor that makes comparing recidivism rates across states problematic is the distinct composition of each state s prison population. For instance, a state that sentences to prison large numbers of people who are at low risk of reoffending will logically have a lower recidivism rate than a state that uses its prison facilities for people who are at higher risk of reoffending. The organization of a state s correctional system can also influence its recidivism rates, as is the case for Connecticut and Rhode Island, which operate unified correctional systems where all individuals are under the state's jurisdiction rather than separate state prison and county jail systems. Because of these and other factors, comparing recidivism rates from state to state is discouraged. Three-year recidivism rate for 2007 prison Three-year recidivism rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in recidivism rate Colorado percent 49.0 percent 5.8 percent Prison Population 22,519 22,989 23,186 22,860 22,610 21,037 20,134 Admissions to Prison 10,625 11,038 10,992 10,704 9,935 9,116 9,620 Releases from Prison 10,110 10,565 10,803 11,033 10,161 10,657 10,506 In 2007, Colorado was experiencing high rates of recidivism and one of the fastest-growing corrections populations in the United States. To address these and other concerns, state lawmakers established the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the state s sentencing and corrections policies, with reentry as one of its primary initiatives. The CCJJ issued a report in based on its findings, and many of the commission s policy recommendations have since been enacted. The work of the commission now focuses on evidence-based recidivism-reduction initiatives in addition to promoting the cost-effective use of criminal justice funds. State agencies have Reducing recidivism i 3

4 received a total of eight Second Chance Act awards to further support reentry initiatives. State officials point to these and other efforts that incorporated the following strategies and have contributed to the state s reduction in recidivism: Investing in community-based treatment. In 2010, the state reclassified certain substance use and possession offenses, reducing the length of sentence associated with these offenses. The first year this law went into effect, it generated $1.4 million in savings for the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), which the state reinvested in mental health and substance use treatment programs in the state. That same year, lawmakers reduced the length of time that certain adults under parole supervision (including those at low or medium risk of reoffense) can serve in prison when they violate the conditions of their parole. More than $4.5 million in savings generated through this change in policy was invested into mental health and substance use treatment and other individualized services for people on parole. Promoting continuity of care from incarceration to the community. CDOC continues to work toward ensuring that individuals in administrative segregation are not released directly to the community and, instead, move through a step-down process and receive services to promote a successful transition. Tailoring approaches to individual needs. Colorado State Board of Parole members receive training in motivational interviewing and apply these skills in parole hearings. An evidence-based practice, motivational interviewing focuses on decreasing resistance and promoting an individual s readiness for change and commitment to programming. Providing incentives for participation in programs designed to reduce likelihood of a person reoffending. State law allows adults who are incarcerated and convicted of certain crimes to earn as much as 12 days per month off their sentence by complying with rules and participating in correctional programs such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, mental health or substance use treatment, educational classes, and vocational training. What Works to Reduce Recidivism Research has shown that certain practices and policies can reduce recidivism, including: Using risk and need assessments to inform case management. Research shows that correctional programs with the greatest impact on recidivism sort individuals based on their risk of reoffending. Risk and need assessment tools examine both static (historical and/or demographic) and dynamic (changeable) criminogenic needs (also known as criminogenic risk factors) that research has shown to be associated with criminal behavior and make someone more likely to reoffend. The assessment produces a risk score that allows programs to sort individuals based on risk levels in a consistent and reliable manner, tailor interventions, and prioritize resources for those who are at higher risk of reoffending. Establishing programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism and ensuring they are implemented with fidelity. While specific approaches may vary across states, programs should be based on the best available science and research. Interventions that address criminogenic needs and take into account an individual s responsivity factors such as motivation for change, learning styles, and mental health needs are more 4 i Reducing recidivism

5 likely to impact recidivism than those that do not. Programs should also establish desired outcomes and ensure means for measuring progress, such as regular quality assessments and evaluations. Studies show that implementing evidence-based programs and practices can reduce reoffense rates by 10 to 20 percent. 9 Implementing community supervision policies and practices that promote successful reentry. 10 Improved community supervision to provide greater support and access to services is critical to efforts to reduce recidivism. Supervision conditions and programs should be informed by an individual s risk and needs, focusing resources on those who are assessed to be at higher risk. Parole and probation officers should also have a range of options for swift and certain sanctions and incentives that are proportionate to the event and appropriate for the individual under supervision. The Council of State Governments Justice Center outlined these practices in The National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety: Addressing Recidivism, Crime, and Corrections Spending, 11 a report summarizing the innovative strategies discussed over the course of a summit of state leaders, federal officials, practitioners, and researchers in In 2012, the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the National Reentry Resource Center released a series of user-friendly checklists specifically designed to help executive and legislative policymakers, state corrections administrators, and state reentry coordinators implement these proven strategies in their states. 12 Three-year recidivism rate for 2007 prison Three-year recidivism rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in recidivism rate Connecticut percent 40.0 percent 8.9 percent Prison Population 14,998 14,745 13,876 13,578 12,955 12,104 12,417 Admissions to Prison 10,532 9,222 9,154 8,514 8,218 7,874 7,411 Releases from Prison 16,371 16,295 16,317 15,536 15,515 14,784 13,533 The state of Connecticut operates a unified correctional system, meaning that all offenders (i.e., those awaiting trial and those sentenced to incarceration) in the state are under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Department of Correction (CTDOC). Connecticut does not have county jails; therefore, offenders sentenced to any length of stay, even short-term jail sentences, are housed in a CTDOC facility. Data above reflect the sentenced population; pretrial detainees have been excluded from these numbers. When Connecticut state leaders employed a justice reinvestment approach in 2004 to determine why their state had the third-fastest-growing prison population in the country, they found that a significant percentage of their admissions to prison were for probation violations. As a result, state leaders enacted a legislative package designed to reverse this trend. Between July 2003 and September 2005, the number of adults on probation returned to prison declined by 50 percent, 14 which enabled the state to bring inmates being housed out of state back to Connecticut, generating nearly $50 million in cost savings, some of which was reinvested into mental health and substance use treatment services, community-based pilot projects, and other Reducing recidivism i 5

6 programs. In 2007, two parolees (whose circumstances had nothing to do with reforms implemented in 2004) invaded a home and committed a triple homicide, rocking the state. The prison population spiked, and lawmakers made additional changes to policy to improve the parole decision-making process. Today, state leaders point to legislation enacted in 2004 and 2008, along with additional subsequent improvements to policy, as being instrumental in the state s declining recidivism rates: Reentry planning and intensive supervision. The legislation enacted in 2004 created an intensive probation supervision program for high-risk individuals who will be released to probation as part of a split sentence. Within 90 days prior to their release, program staff meet with participants to discuss their probation terms and develop a reentry plan that incorporates needs such as housing, employment, or substance use treatment. Upon release, they receive up to four months of intensive probation supervision, followed by standard probation supervision. Improving the response to people who violate conditions of probation. Individuals who violate the terms of their probation receive up to 120 days of intensive supervision and services as an alternative to incarceration. At the start of this supervision period, individuals are assessed for risk and need and receive appropriate services; they are also required to meet with their probation officer at least once each week. Intensive supervision is followed by standard probation if the person has complied with the terms of supervision. Providing continuity of care to people with mental health needs released from prison. The Connecticut Department of Correction (CTDOC) and the University of Connecticut s Correctional Managed Health Care partnered in 2006 to establish a licensed medical and mental health position in prisons and jails to assist in discharge planning and ensure continuity of care for individuals with mental disorders being released to the community. Data collection and performance measurement. The state made a priority of holding communitybased programs and community supervision agencies accountable for delivering results. To that end, CTDOC upgraded its data tracking system and created a Best Practices Unit in 2011 to measure the agency s performance and promote evidencebased policies and practices within the agency. Using a Justice Reinvestment Approach Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, reduce corrections spending, and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease crime and reduce recidivism. In the process, policymakers, experts, and stakeholders work together to analyze a variety of state-specific data to develop practical policies that are based on the best available data and research and are tailored to the distinct public safety needs of the jurisdiction. These policies are designed to generate cost savings, a portion of which can then be reinvested in correctional and community-based programs aimed at further reducing crime and recidivism, such as treatment for mental health and substance use disorders. To date, the U.S. Department of Justice s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), The Pew Charitable Trusts, and other organizations have supported justice reinvestment efforts in 31 states. Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin are among the states that have both adopted the justice reinvestment approach and lowered recidivism rates. 6 i Reducing recidivism

7 Three-year recidivism rate for 2007 prison Three-year recidivism rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in recidivism rate Georgia percent 26.0 percent 10.0 percent Three-year reconviction rate for 2007 prison Three-year reconviction rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in reconviction rate 27.9 percent 26.6 percent 4.7 percent Prison Population 53,940 54,294 54,369 51,820 51,576 53,348 52,123 Admissions to Prison 19,881 20,193 20,698 19,335 21,093 21,400 20,087 Releases from Prison 18,685 19,839 20,633 21,874 21,337 19,628 21,312 Parole Population 20,884 21,557 21,307 22,403 23,729 22,480 25,020 Parole Violators: Technical Revocations* Parole Violators: New Offense Revocations* 2,993 2,620 2,669 2,390 2,342 2,463 2,065 * Revocations can be to prison or to local jails In 2009, the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) developed The Ten Step Framework, a set of guiding principles for revamping community supervision through the use of risk assessments; targeted, evidence-based interventions and community impact programs; and swift and proportionate sanctions and incentives. In 2011, Governor Nathan Deal established the Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgia, which was tasked with analyzing sentencing and corrections data to develop policy options aimed at addressing the growth of the state s prison population, improve public safety, and hold offenders accountable. The analysis that resulted from this effort found that more than half of all prison admissions were for lowlevel drug and property offenses. Recommendations from the council resulted in comprehensive adult sentencing and corrections reform legislation during the 2012 and 2013 sessions. The new laws emphasized rehabilitation over incarceration for nonviolent offenders, and prioritized community supervision and programs and services focused on addressing reentry needs. Experts projected that, once fully implemented, these policies would Reducing recidivism i 7

8 reduce the prison population by nearly 5,000 over 5 years, saving the state at least $264 million. In 2013, Governor Deal established the Governor s Office of Transition, Support and Reentry to promote successful transition to the community after incarceration, reduce recidivism, enhance collaboration among stakeholders, and ensure that cost savings from justice reforms are reinvested in evidence-based, community-focused services. Georgia officials have received two Second Chance Act Statewide Recidivism Reduction grants and are pursuing several other grants to support the continued development of reentry policies and practices focused on lowering recidivism among people at highest risk of reoffending. Georgia officials cite various aspects of the above initiatives that have contributed to the statewide reductions in reincarceration rates for people released from prison: Improved probation and parole supervision. A partnership between the GDC and the State Board of Pardons and Parole has resulted in the movement of certain offenders, who would otherwise max out their prison sentence with no community supervision, from prison to transitional centers. These individuals are paired with parole officers who help connect them to housing, employment, and treatment programs in the community. Additionally, probation officers have been given the authority to impose community-based graduated sanctions for probation violators rather than recommending a prison sentence. Accountability courts. Reforms in 2012 significantly expanded the use of accountability courts, requiring that those courts use validated risk and need assessments to guide decisions about treatment and supervision, as well as incorporate programs addressing criminogenic risk factors. Over $10 million was appropriated by the state legislature to support and encourage the accountability courts as they incorporate the new standards and establish additional courts. Accountability courts have expanded to better address mental health and substance use needs, as well as the unique needs of veterans. Alternatives to incarceration. State officials have created and expanded day reporting centers, residential substance abuse treatment centers, and integrated treatment facilities in order to provide the courts with viable community-based alternatives to prison for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders. We think one of the most important parts of [our state s reforms] is the data collection and evidencebased practices, essentially making sure we re spending money where results are predictable and the best results will be achieved. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal 8 i Reducing recidivism

9 Three-year recidivism rate for 2006 prison Three-year recidivism rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in recidivism rate North Carolina percent 28.9 percent 19.3 percent Prison Population 38,423 39,326 40,824 40,102 41,030 38,385 37,469 Admissions to Prison 27,934 28,535 30,350 28,164 28,975 24,036 21,538 Releases from Prison 26,986 27,637 28,860 28,889 28,048 26,685 22,455 Probation Population 113, , , , ,095 98,752 99,089 Probation Violators: Technical Revocations* 17,555 18,059 19,540 19,045 19,455 15,588 9,458 Probation Violators: New Offense Revocations* 3,627 4,053 4,221 4,168 4,140 4,131 3,496 Probation Violators: Graduated Sanctions ,974 8,240 * Revocations can be to prison or to local jails To address rising incarceration rates and corrections costs, North Carolina policymakers began a justice reinvestment process in 2009 that revealed that probation revocations accounted for 50 percent of prison admissions that year, and of those admissions, 76 percent did not involve a new offense. In 2011, policymakers enacted sweeping legislation focused on strengthening community supervision and reducing revocations. These improvements and resulting cost savings have enabled the state to close 9 correctional facilities, fund 175 additional probation officers, and support community-based treatment programs. State officials point to elements of this law, along with other improvements to policy and practice, that they believe contribute to declines in recidivism, including: Increased emphasis on individualized case planning. Risk and need assessments during incarceration and community supervision inform case plans to ensure that people receive supervision and services aimed at reducing their likelihood of reoffending, prioritizing those assessed to have high risk and high need. Ensuring fidelity to evidence-based practices. Probation officers receive monthly trainings to support and advance competencies in evidencebased practices, such as using risk and need assessments to inform case plans, building effective alliances to increase motivation for change, and applying incentives and sanctions. Reducing recidivism i 9

10 Graduated sanction options. Statewide, probation officers are utilizing delegated authority that allows them to impose certain sanctions without requiring an appearance before a judge. These sanctions such as two- to three-day stays in local jails for recurring supervision violations allow probation officers to respond quickly to these violations and provide a practical alternative to lengthier and more disruptive sanctions in prison. The establishment of five local reentry councils across the state. State funds support a dedicated coordinator for each council who builds relationships with service providers, probation and parole agencies, and other stakeholders. Through these councils, state officials maintain close connections with local organizations engaged in reentry initiatives in their community, and provide resources to adults released from prison who are seeking services to aid them in their transition to the community. does a decline in reincarceration Rates Equate to Increased Public Safety? Reducing recidivism is about changing the behavior of people who have committed crimes in the past. It is also about changing the business of the people who supervise, treat, and support people who are incarcerated and released to the community. Accordingly, anyone seeking to make sure recidivism reduction strategies are increasing public safety will need to look beyond reincarceration rates, which are driven by two factors: people returning to prison because of a sentence for a new crime; and/or people returning to prison because they violated a condition of their community supervision. To what extent are reductions in recidivism highlighted in this report achieved by changes in rates at which people released from prison reoffend as opposed to just tolerating more instances of noncompliance among people released from prison? Data immediately available from Georgia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin describing felony conviction rates for people released from prison suggest success in changing the behaviors of people released from prison. Reconviction data, however, capture only instances of more serious felony offenses for which a prison sentence was deemed appropriate by the sentencing judge. Using all reconvictions or arrests as a measure of recidivism offers an opportunity to measure criminal justice involvement that may be more reflective of criminal behavior. The three-year reconviction rate (that is, reconviction for any crime, not only those that resulted in a return to prison) declined by 4.7 percent in Georgia and 9.8 percent in Wisconsin from 2007 to In addition to reconviction data, some states, such as Pennsylvania, match arrest data to prison release cohorts. Pennsylvania reported a 7-percent decline in one-year rearrest rates and a 2-percent decline in two-year rearrest rates from release cohorts. 10 i Reducing recidivism

11 Three-year recidivism rate for 2007 prison Three-year recidivism rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in recidivism rate Pennsylvania percent 40.8 percent 7.1 percent Prison Population 46,028 49,307 51,487 51,321 51,638 51,184 51,512 Admissions to Prison 18,601 19,049 18,859 18,518 19,960 20,238 21,816 Releases from Prison 16,832 15,591 16,331 18,417 19,364 20,439 21,815 Parole Population 22,615 24,164 22,622 24,043 25,914 27,287 29,442 Parole Violators: Technical Revocations* 3,371 2,947 3,161 2,869 2,516 3,386 3,161 Parole Violators: New Offense Revocations* 1,696 1,802 1,983 1,931 1,836 1,990 2,060 Parole Violators: Graduated Sanctions 1,875 2,050 1,864 1,770 1,852 1,695 2,823 * Revocations can be to prison or to local jails Since 2006, Pennsylvania officials have made concerted efforts to address high recidivism rates and corrections costs by using evidence-based practices with correctional populations, such as risk assessment to inform interventions. Four Second Chance Act grants have been awarded to state agencies since 2009 to enhance reentry programs, including a Statewide Recidivism Reduction planning grant for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PDOC) in In the same year, policymakers undertook a justice reinvestment approach and enacted sweeping legislation to reduce inefficiencies in the current corrections and parole systems and establish more cost-effective approaches to reduce recidivism among parolees. State officials point to various aspects of these initiatives as having contributed to the statewide reduction in recidivism, including the following: Targeted reentry services. PDOC has adopted a wide range of evidence-based programs, including Thinking for a Change to address criminal thinking and behaviors; violence prevention programs; and prisonbased therapeutic communities, which offer a therapeutic culture and environment in which individuals with substance use disorders receive treatment and other services in a housing area separated from the rest of the incarcerated population. Second Chance Act grants have supported many of these services, including a pilot program providing medical treatment for alcohol and opiate dependence, which PDOC plans to expand. Participants receive comprehensive case management and services and are connected to treatment in the community upon release. Reducing recidivism i 11

12 Incentives and sanctions. In PDOC s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive program created in 2008, certain individuals convicted of nonviolent offenses can reduce their sentences through good behavior and participation in programs that target criminogenic risk factors. Additionally, the state uses a graduated sanctioning grid to respond to parole violations and is exploring a similar sanctioning system for probation. Data collection and performance measurement. About 75 percent of halfway houses in the state are operated by private contractors. After studies found that individuals who had transitioned to the community through the halfway houses had higher rates of recidivism than those who did not, PDOC implemented a performance incentive funding model in which contractors work with PDOC to establish baseline recidivism rates and then to review their recidivism rates every six months. Contractors can receive additional funds if they reduce recidivism below the baseline, or are at risk of having their contracts revoked if recidivism is above the baseline. Results from the first reporting period indicate a 16-percent reduction in recidivism among the contractors. To support continued progress, PDOC has provided training in cognitive-behavioral interventions to the contractors and is planning additional trainings. Tracking and Reporting Recidivism As policymakers intensify their focus on recidivism rates, states are finding that they need to build or expand capacity to collect and analyze corrections, probation, and parole data. In order to gain an accurate and meaningful picture of recidivism, states should incorporate the following in their practices to collect and report recidivism data: 1. A primary definition of recidivism; a common definition is a return to prison for a new offense or a technical violation within three years of release. 2. Various recidivism measures, including returns to prison, arrests, convictions, and violations of probation or parole conditions. 3. Information about the recidivism event, including whether it was a new offense or a technical violation, the offense type, and the geographic region. 4. Information about the offender, including risk level, age, gender, prior criminal histories, and behavioral health needs. 5. Consistent follow-up periods of one, two, and three years post-release. 6. Annual recidivism calculations. 7. Calculations based on all if computerized data are available (rather than a representative sample of ). 12 i Reducing recidivism

13 In its entirety, this list does not represent current practices in most states; rather, it is a set of measures and standards that states should strive to incorporate. Maintaining reliable and useful systems of data collection requires considerable time and resources, and practices vary widely from state to state. Some states have changed how they define recidivism over time. As a result of these challenges and variations, many states are unable to calculate statewide recidivism rates or to analyze trends. Yet investments to track a variety of information in a consistent manner will help states understand trends, identify drivers, and inform new policies to effectively reduce recidivism. Three-year recidivism rate for 2004 prison Three-year recidivism rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in recidivism rate Rhode Island percent 48.9 percent 5.1 percent Prison Population 2,777 2,782 2,466 2,277 2,202 2,143 2,221 Admissions to Prison 2,483 2,379 2,404 2,151 2,015 1,927 1,875 Releases from Prison 2,467 2,545 2,723 2,596 2,324 2,106 1,884 The State of Rhode Island operates a unified correctional system, meaning that all offenders (i.e., those awaiting trial, sentenced, and under community supervision) in the state are under the jurisdiction of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC). Rhode Island does not have county jails; therefore, offenders sentenced to any length of stay are housed at RIDOC s Adult Correctional Institutions. The data in this table refer to the felony-level population and individuals with sentence lengths of one year or more; these numbers do not reflect the entire RIDOC inmate population. Probation Population 25,302 26,201 25,360 25,049 24,097 23,546 22,658 Probation Violators: Technical Revocations Probation Violators: New Offense Revocations The probation population refers to both felony and misdemeanor probation cases. A 2004 Executive Order from then-governor Donald Carcieri created Rhode Island s Steering Committee on Corrections Reform and Prisoner Reentry, which included directors, managers, and front-line workers from key state agencies representing corrections, labor, housing, human services, and youth and family services, among others. The committee initiated many reforms in the state, including the expansion of the use of validated risk assessment tools in the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC). In 2007, state policymakers began a justice reinvestment process to develop further policy options addressing incarceration rates and corrections costs, some of which were enacted through legislation passed Reducing recidivism i 13

14 in Since then, RIDOC s population has seen a significant drop in commitment and, causing an overall population decrease of 18 percent. Supported by a 2012 Second Chance Act Statewide Recidivism Reduction grant, RIDOC is pursuing a variety of initiatives to build on the state s progress, including expanding the implementation of evidence-based practices, strengthening the staff s capabilities in the new practices, and adopting systems of quality assurance. These various initiatives changed the state s approach to prisoner reentry. State officials highlight these reforms in particular as contributing to the state s reduction in recidivism: Risk and need assessments. Reentry plans are created during an individual s incarceration based on their assessed level of risk and need. RIDOC staff are trained in the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of applying the three principles in case management and programs. 19 Additionally, the policy changes enacted in 2008 required the use of risk assessments to inform parole release decisions. Incentivizing compliance and participation in reentry programs. The 2008 legislation standardized RIDOC s system of incentives for behavior and added a component based on program participation. Depending on their crime, individuals incarcerated in RIDOC facilities may now earn up to 10 days per month of earned time toward their sentence for good behavior and additional time for participating in rehabilitation or work programs. Targeted reentry programming. Individuals may receive a number of services including education and employment programs, substance use treatment, and family support to address needs and assist in their transition upon release. RIDOC is currently working to incorporate interventions to address criminal thinking, such as the evidencebased Thinking for a Change program. Collaborating with local partners. RIDOC coordinates with local stakeholders through the state s regional reentry councils, composed of elected local officials, community and faith-based organizations, law enforcement, service providers, and business leaders. The department is working to create standard operating procedures for referrals of high-risk individuals to the local councils, which help facilitate successful transitions to the community. Safe, secure, orderly prisons those are bedrock. But we can truly deliver on our commitment to the safety of our citizens by also assuming leadership in implementing principles and practices that reduce post-release recidivism. A.T. Wall, Director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections 14 i Reducing recidivism

15 Three-year recidivism rate for 2007 prison Three-year recidivism rate for 2010 prison Percent decline in recidivism rate South Carolina percent 27.5 percent 17.9 percent Prison Population 23,430 24,598 24,460 24,400 23,306 22,160 22,167 Admissions to Prison 13,906 13,950 13,199 12,586 10,888 10,170 9,569 Releases from Prison 13,499 12,807 13,454 12,744 12,024 11,409 9,623 Percent Change Admissions Due to Probation Revocations 1,869 1,884 1,856 1,766 1,497 1,213 1, % Admissions Due to Parole Revocations 1,185 1,175 1, % Admissions Due to Community Supervision Revocations % Revocations as a Percent of Admissions 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.1% 23.4% 21.2% 18.3% -24.5% To address high crime rates and corrections costs, the South Carolina legislature established the Sentencing Reform Commission in 2008 to review sentencing and corrections policies. Based on data from multiple agencies and input from a broad range of stakeholders, the commission recommended significant changes that were enacted in the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act of The legislation created alternatives to incarceration for technical violations and ensured that more people receive supervision and support upon release from prison. The bill also designated a committee to produce annual reports on reductions in revocations and new felony convictions for people under probation or parole supervision. The reforms have resulted in cost savings for the state in 2013, the state attributed a savings of more than $5 million to the new practices. State officials highlight the following as key components of their efforts to reduce recidivism: Expanding the use of risk assessments. Probation and parole agents of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services (SCDPPPS) must use a risk and need assessment to guide decisions about supervision and services. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) has developed and fully implemented a risk assessment instrument specifically designed for the youthful offender population (ages 17 to 25). This instrument has been further developed, adapted, and piloted to meet the unique needs of SCDC s female population, and will be expanded throughout all SCDC institutions this year. Reducing recidivism i 15

16 Training in effective supervision practices. Probation and parole agents receive regular trainings in core correctional skills, including the Effective Practices in Correctional Settings (EPICS) module. Developed by the University of Cincinnati, EPICS helps staff apply principles based on the RNR model. Funds from the Justice Reinvestment Initiative and Second Chance Act grant programs have supported these trainings, among other activities. Focus on high-risk youth and young adults. In response to high rates of recidivism among youthful offenders, SCDC provides these individuals with intensive community supervision and services to help reduce technical violations of conditions of parole and ultimately reduce the rate of recidivism. Services to address family relationships, education, employment, mental health, and substance use are among those available. All youthful offenders released from SCDC initially receive intensive supervision but, over time, may be reduced to a moderate level of supervision based upon their progress with their case plan and reassessments of their risk, needs, and strengths. Addressing individual needs and responsivity factors. SCDC is expanding the use of telemedicine and telepsychiatry in its facilities in order to better address individuals health and behavioral health needs pre-release. Additionally, SCDC will soon start a virtual visitation program inside facilities to help maintain family and social relationships, fostering the support network that can be critical to a successful return to the community. The Second Chance Act: Investing in Program Innovation and System-Level Change Since 2008, the Second Chance Act has advanced the reentry field by incubating a broad range of reentry programs. The landmark, bipartisan legislation authorized federal grants to support vital services including employment training and assistance, substance use treatment, education, housing, family programming, mentoring, victims support, and other services to make a person s transition from prison or jail safer and more successful. As of September 2013, Second Chance Act programs had served nearly 90,000 individuals across 49 states and the District of Columbia. 21 The Bureau of Justice Assistance has also used grant programs authorized under the Second Chance Act to position states not just to design or expand a reentry program, but also to change policies and build infrastructure that enables them to have an impact on recidivism rates across the entire state. Through the Second Chance Act Comprehensive Statewide Adult Recidivism Reduction Program, states have received millions of dollars in funding support toward system-wide reforms related to risk- and need-driven case planning and programming, as well as community supervision policies that research has shown can lead to reductions in recidivism. States participating in this grant program set specific recidivism reduction targets and track progress toward these goals. The grant program was created in direct response to challenges that leaders from all 50 states identified during a forum hosted by the National Reentry Resource Center in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island are among the 16 states that have received these specialized grants. 16 i Reducing recidivism

18 Case planning and risk assessment. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WIDOC) uses an automated risk and needs assessment and a unified case planning system to assess individuals at intake into facilities or community corrections and reassess these individuals at various points during their sentence. Staff are in frequent contact with the individuals and regularly update case plans. All divisions and many agency partners share the same information system and are able to access assessments and information about program participation, which increases efficiency and ensures that interventions are appropriate for an individual s most current needs. Supporting employment readiness. WIDOC partners with the state s 11 workforce development boards on the Windows to Work program, which offers comprehensive reentry services (3 to 9 months prior to release) and post-release programming (for approximately 12 months after release) with a focus on skills training, financial literacy, and other assistance needed to help participants find and maintain employment. Alternative sanctions to reduce revocations. Before reforms in 2009, low-level violations often resulted in revocations to prison. Community corrections agents are now able to use shorter jail stays as an alternative to revocation for individuals on extended supervision. Investments in targeted services. In 2011, WIDOC expanded a variety of interventions designed to increase community-based alternatives to revocation, including cognitive behavioral programming, alcohol and drug treatment, education, vocational and employment opportunities, and treatment for individuals with serious mental disorders. The National Reentry Resource Center Established by the Second Chance Act, the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) provides education, training, and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, local governments, community-based service providers, nonprofit organizations, and corrections institutions involved with prisoner reentry. The NRRC s mission is to advance the reentry field by disseminating information to and from policymakers, practitioners, and researchers and by promoting evidence-based principles and best practices. The NRRC is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice s Bureau of Justice Assistance and is a project of the Council of State Governments Justice Center, in cooperation with the Urban Institute, the Association of State Correctional Administrators, the American Probation and Parole Association, the National Association of Counties, and other key partner organizations. Recidivism Reduction in California It is impossible to consider national trends in corrections and recidivism without accounting for the oversized impact the state of California has on these trends. The size of its prison population and high reincarceration rate among people released from prison put the state in a category of its own. Coupling the sheer dimensions of the California system with the scope of the reforms that the state has enacted in recent years, the transformation of California s corrections system is on a scale unlike what any other state has experienced. Until relatively recently, California incarcerated more adults in prison than any other state in the U.S. i Prisons in the state were notoriously crowded. Report after report pointed to the state s failure to supervise parolees effectively; a 2003 report 18 i Reducing recidivism

19 found that 70 percent of the state s parole population returned to prison within 18 months of release, which was calculated to cost the state nearly $1 billion per year. ii The size of the state s parole population and its high recidivism rates skewed national recidivism data; criminologists cited the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2002 report on prisoners released in 1994 that showed national recidivism data that incorporated California data (51.8 percent) and that did not incorporate California data (40.1 percent). iii In the last three years, state leaders have fundamentally changed the policies of the California corrections system. Recognizing that parole revocations were a key driver of the prison population, lawmakers enacted Senate Bill (SB) 18 in 2009, which established a new type of non-revocable parole (NRP) for individuals, who, according to the validated risk assessment tool used by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), did not pose a high risk to reoffend. Additional criteria were included in the statute that a person had to meet to be placed under NRP. iv Parole for people under NRP cannot be revoked for any reason; they can only be incarcerated again for a new crime. v Also enacted in 2009, SB 678 created the California Community Corrections Performance Incentive Program, which promoted the use of evidence-based strategies for reducing the rate of failure on probation. SB 678 also developed a mechanism for providing additional funding to probation departments via corrections expenditure savings realized through fewer revocations to prison. Moving to comply with orders by federal court judges, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117. Known as the Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, this law realigned custody responsibilities for a particular class of offenders those identified as non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders from state to local jurisdictions and transferred postrelease supervision responsibilities for this population from state parole officers to county probation officers. Between 2010 and 2013, the state s prison population declined by 17 percent, a decline unmatched by any other state. The number of adults on parole has dropped even more dramatically from 105,128 in 2010 to 45,585 in 2013, a 57-percent decline. What has happened to recidivism rates during this period? Preliminary data from the first year of Public Safety Realignment implementation reveal promising trends. The most recent data available, which are current through 2012, all show declines in recidivism from the previous year. vi This includes returns to prison, rearrests, and reconvictions at one year, two years, and three years post-release. Changes in three-year reincarceration and reconviction rates since 2007 (the main point of reference used in this report) show even greater declines over a longer period of time. Three-Year Recidivism Metrics Release Cohort Recidivism Rate Release Cohort Recidivism Rate Percent Change Returns to Prison % % -6.3% Reconvictions % % -4.7% Correctional Metrics Percent Change Prison Population 170, , , , , , , % Parole Population 123, , , ,128 98,719 56,342 45, % California s recidivism rates are based on fiscal year cohorts; all correctional metrics presented here are based on calendar year data. i E. Ann Carson and Daniela Golinelli, Prisoners in 2012 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2013), content/pub/pdf/p12tar9112.pdf. ii Little Hoover Commission, Back to the Community: Safe and Sound Parole Policies (Sacramento: Little Hoover Commission, 2003), studies/172/report172.pdf. iii Patrick A. Langan and David J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2002), iv To be eligible, an individual must meet criteria as established under Penal Code section For these eligibility criteria, see Non_Revocable_Parole/pdf/Non_Revocable_Parole_FAQs.pdf. v CDCR implements public safety reforms to parole supervision, expanded incentive credit for inmates, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, accessed July 26, 2011, vi California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Realignment Report: An Examination of Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Year of Public Safety Realignment (Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013), Realignment_1_Year_Report_ pdf; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013 Outcome Evaluation Report (Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013), Reducing recidivism i 19

September 2012 States Report Reductions in Recidivism In many jurisdictions, state and local government officials have intensified their efforts to reduce recidivism. As policymakers are under tremendous

Issue Brief Project Public Safety NamePerformance Project The Impact of Arizona s Probation Reforms An analysis of trends in Arizona s prison system in 2008 estimated that the inmate population would increase

Mandatory Supervision: The Benefits of Evidence Based Supervision under Public Safety Realignment State prison and probation are two ends of the response continuum traditionally available to judges who

Justice Reinvestment State Brief: Texas This brief is part of a series for state policymakers interested in learning how particular states across the country have employed a data-driven strategy called

STATE REENTRY COORDINATORS are uniquely positioned to ensure that the policies and practices that go into a recidivism-reduction initiative are being implemented effectively, both in corrections settings

State Spending for Corrections: Long-Term Trends and Recent Criminal Justice Policy Reforms September 11, 2013 Overview State spending for corrections has risen steadily over the last three decades, outpacing

Report on Adult Drug Court: eligibility, procedure, and funding Prepared for the State of Rhode Island General Assembly revised April 26, 2007 The Council on Crime Prevention: Nathaniel Lepp, Matthew Palevsky,

April 2009 justice reinvestment in texas Assessing the Impact of the 2007 Justice Reinvestment Initiative WHEN THE 80TH SESSION of the Texas Legislature convened in 2007, elected officials faced a major

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE STATE WHAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT? PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT Revises the definition of a felony

Probation and Parole Violations State Responses Probation and Parole Violations State Responses By Alison Lawrence William T. Pound, Executive Director 7700 East First Place Denver, Colorado 80230 (303)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE STATE Erin Sasse, Chief Office of External Affairs erin.sasse@cdcr.ca.gov (916) 445-4950 WHAT IS

The Second Chance Act Frequently Asked Questions What does the Second Chance Act do? The Second Chance Act primarily authorizes federal funding for state and federal reentry programs. It also directs but

May 2014 Applying a Justice Reinvestment Approach to Improve Michigan s Sentencing System Summary Report of Analyses and Policy Options IN MICHIGAN, ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE STATE dollars is spent on corrections.

SESSION OF 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON HOUSE BILL NO. 2170 As Amended by House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Brief* HB 2170 would make numerous changes to sentencing, probation, and postrelease

THE SAN DIEGO Reentry Roundtable Recommendations to Assembly Select Committee on Justice Reinvestment Introduction By December 2013, according to a federal three-judge panel, California s state prisons

BRIEF I Setting the Stage: Juvenile Justice History, Statistics, and Practices in the United States and North Carolina Ann Brewster Most states juvenile justice systems have two main goals: increased public

ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION IN A NUTSHELL An alternative to incarceration is any kind of punishment other than time in prison or jail that can be given to a person who commits a crime. Frequently, punishments

It s all apples and oranges. January 31, 2012 Nathan Brady OLRGC What is recidivism and what is the impact on the state? How does Utah compare nationally? What is Utah doing to address inmate recidivism

County of San Diego Public Safety Realignment & Post-Release Community Supervision Preliminary 2011 Implementation Plan Executive Committee of the Community Corrections Partnership: Mack Jenkins, Chief

County Intermediate Punishment Plan 2014-2015 1. Assessment of available countywide correctional services and future needs The Allegheny County Jail (ACJ) is a detention and incarceration facility based

An Updated CPOC Adult Probation Business Model to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes in California (May 2014) Introduction Welcome to the second addition of the adult services business plan presented by

It s time to shift gears on criminal justice VOTER TOOLKIT 2014 Who are the most powerful elected officials most voters have never voted for? ANSWER: Your District Attorney & Sheriff THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT

Mental Health Courts: A New Tool By Stephanie Yu, Fiscal Analyst For fiscal year (FY) 2008-09, appropriations for the Judiciary and the Department of Community Health (DCH) include funding for a mental

A brief from June 2015 Utah s 2015 Criminal Justice Reforms Overview On March 31, Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) signed into law sentencing and corrections legislation that employs researchdriven policies

Probation and Parole: A Primer for Law Enforcement Officers Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice At the end of 2008, there were 4.3 million adults on probation supervision and over 800,000

NOVEMBER 2013 RESEARCH SUMMARY Pretrial criminal justice research commissioned by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) has thrown new light on how critical the earliest decisions made in the criminal

PUBLIC SAFETY ACTION PLAN Prepared for Governor Haslam by Subcabinet Working Group JANUARY 2012 Table of Contents Subcabinet working group makeup and input Two-fold mission of the group Summary of findings

County of San Diego SB 618 Reentry Program May 3, 2007 1 California Recidivism - The Highest Return to Prison Rate in the Nation In FY 2006-07 it is estimated that San Diego County will convict over 16,000

PRISONER REENTRY IN MICHIGAN History & Overview June 2, 2011 Promoting public safety through effective policies and systems MCCD is the only statewide organization that partners with Michigan s citizens

AN ACT RELATING TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE; PROVIDING FOR TREATMENT, PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION EXPANSION; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:

The Collaborative on Reentry EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ILLINOIS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM In 2009, 1 in every 38 adults in Illinois was under correctional control. This represents a dramatic growth in the corrections

2016 2019 Strategic Plan Allegheny County Jail Collaborative 2016 2019 Strategic Plan July 2016 page 1 MISSION The mission of the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative is to reduce recidivism among people

JFA Institute Conducting Justice and Corrections Research for Effective Policy Making Evaluation of the San Diego County Community Corrections Programs Prepared by James Austin, Ph.D. Roger Ocker Robert

WHAT IS THE ILLINOIS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE AND HOW DID IT START? MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Illinois Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health and Justice is to equip communities to appropriately

Reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Impact on Criminal Justice Hon. Judy Harris Kluger Chief of Policy and Planning New York State Unified Court System Michael Rempel Director of Research Center

House Proposal of Amendment S. 292 An act relating to term probation, the right to bail, medical care of inmates, and a reduction in the number of nonviolent prisoners, probationers, and detainees. The

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Second Chance Act: Sec. 1. Short Title. Part I Improvements to Existing Programs This section names the short title of the act as the Second Chance Act of 2007: Community

National Trends: Policy Initiatives March 13, 2014 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices Thomas MacLellan Presentation to the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Violent

Removal of Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System: A State Trends Update Rebecca Gasca on behalf of Campaign for Youth Justice Juvenile Court founded in 1899 to create a separate justice system for

COMMUNITY SAFETY VICTIM RESPECT OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY OUR MISSION The mission of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections is to provide a safe, secure, and humane correctional system through effective

LOB #185: JUVENILE - ADULT INVESTIGATION AND PROBATION SERVICES Purpose The purpose of the Juvenile and Adult Investigation and Probation Services line of business is to improve public safety by reducing

SMART JUSTICE STRATEGIES ISSUE BRIEF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY AND REDUCING COSTS IN CALIFORNIA If we don t address the top drivers of crime like untreated substance abuse issues we

State Policy Implementation Project CIVIL CITATIONS FOR MINOR OFFENSES Explosive growth in the number of misdemeanor cases has placed a significant burden on local and state court systems. Throughout the

H. R. 1593 One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, two thousand and eight An Act

The Alameda County Model of Probation: Juvenile Supervision August 2011 Model of Probation Juvenile Supervision 1 The Alameda County Model of Probation: Juvenile Supervision August 2011 With the appointment

Program Narrative The Criminal Justice Commission s (CJC) purpose is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of state and local criminal justice systems by providing a centralized and impartial forum

Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012 Agenda Background State Examples: Less Crime at Lower Costs GA Juvenile

Juvenile Justice in Wisconsin by Christina Carmichael Fiscal Analyst Wisconsin Chapter 938 of the Wisconsin statutes is entitled the Juvenile Justice Code. Statute 938.1 of the chapter states that it is

ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,

Checklist for Juvenile Justice Agency Leaders and Managers THE FOLLOWING CHECKLIST will help your agency conduct a detailed assessment of how current policy and practice align with what research has shown

Is Public Safety Realignment Reducing Recidivism in California? June 2014 Magnus Lofstrom, Steven Raphael, and Ryken Grattet with research support from Brandon Martin Supported with funding from the Smith

Mission Statement Texas HOPE Literacy, Inc. Texas HOPE Literacy is an existing initiative that has served as the leading volunteer peer-driven literacy program in Texas prisons. The Texas Department of

Reforming Mississippi s Prison System Prepared by the JFA Institute with assistance from the Mississippi Department of Corrections for the Public Safety Performance Project, the Pew Center on the States

Stearns County, MN Repeat Felony Domestic Violence Court Planning and Implementation Best Practice Guide How can a community come together to change its response to domestic violence crimes? Can a court

Juvenile Diversion in North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice July 2013 Introduction The juvenile justice system in North Carolina has made great gains in reducing the number of juveniles who go to